Research into the substantive Economy - Revision history

Santiago Pinault at 15:20, 22 December 2017

2017-12-22T15:20:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:20, 22 December 2017
Line 8:		Line 8:
	The fruitlessness of the initial contact should not be blamed on either side. It was due neither to unwarranted expectations on the part of the economists, nor to failure of the ancillary disciplines to co-operate. Rather, to overreadiness of the of the economic anthropologist, the economic sociologist and the economic historian to acquaint himself with modern economics. For almost at once the new allies were infected with the selfsame limitations that had prevented the economist themselves from penetrating the tissue of primitive communities, so that in their innocent ardour the scholars of the ancillary fields merely reproduced the efforts of the professional economist which had proved inadequate in the first place.		The fruitlessness of the initial contact should not be blamed on either side. It was due neither to unwarranted expectations on the part of the economists, nor to failure of the ancillary disciplines to co-operate. Rather, to overreadiness of the of the economic anthropologist, the economic sociologist and the economic historian to acquaint himself with modern economics. For almost at once the new allies were infected with the selfsame limitations that had prevented the economist themselves from penetrating the tissue of primitive communities, so that in their innocent ardour the scholars of the ancillary fields merely reproduced the efforts of the professional economist which had proved inadequate in the first place.

	[2] To this comedy of errors both sides contributed with equal generosity. A ranking anthropologist<ref>Polanyi refers here to Melville J. Herskovits and his ''The Economic Life of Primitive Peoples'', in 1940, that change its name for ''Economic Anthropology'', in 1952. -- Santiago Pinault</ref> is on record who pleaded against a theoretical economist that the economist’s definition did not apply to primitive economics societies; but after a public exchange of arguments, he had himself convinced by his opponent, to re-write his own textbook of economic anthropology, this time on the economist’s lines, with the effect of rendering it less useful not only to anthropologists but also to economists. The economists, on the other hand, often denied having even cognizance of any of their own definition of economics, and in effect handled the problem in a manner that showed convincingly their unfamiliarity with the issue.		{{Page \|n°=2}} To this comedy of errors both sides contributed with equal generosity. A ranking anthropologist<ref>Polanyi refers here to Melville J. Herskovits and his ''The Economic Life of Primitive Peoples'', in 1940, that change its name for ''Economic Anthropology'', in 1952. -- Santiago Pinault</ref> is on record who pleaded against a theoretical economist that the economist’s definition did not apply to primitive economics societies; but after a public exchange of arguments, he had himself convinced by his opponent, to re-write his own textbook of economic anthropology, this time on the economist’s lines, with the effect of rendering it less useful not only to anthropologists but also to economists. The economists, on the other hand, often denied having even cognizance of any of their own definition of economics, and in effect handled the problem in a manner that showed convincingly their unfamiliarity with the issue.

	Two different meanings of ‘economic’ are then in question, creating uncertainty which of them is related to the subject matter of economic theory and which to that of the other social sciences, insofar as they deal with the same field of man’s livelihood. These sciences – economic anthropology, economic sociology, economic history – I will call the ancillary disciplines. The question is then what have the two meanings in common with economic theory on the second hand, the ancillary disciplines on the other. For further abbreviation I will call the meaning more suited to the main theory the <u>formal</u>, the other meaning the <u>substantive</u>. Accordingly I take the formal meaning to come close to economizing or maximizing; the substantive, to be related to material want satisfaction. In common usage the two are compounded into a maximizing of material want satisfaction.		Two different meanings of ‘economic’ are then in question, creating uncertainty which of them is related to the subject matter of economic theory and which to that of the other social sciences, insofar as they deal with the same field of man’s livelihood. These sciences – economic anthropology, economic sociology, economic history – I will call the ancillary disciplines. The question is then what have the two meanings in common with economic theory on the second hand, the ancillary disciplines on the other. For further abbreviation I will call the meaning more suited to the main theory the <u>formal</u>, the other meaning the <u>substantive</u>. Accordingly I take the formal meaning to come close to economizing or maximizing; the substantive, to be related to material want satisfaction. In common usage the two are compounded into a maximizing of material want satisfaction.
Line 26:		Line 26:
	*		*

	[3] it from the technical economic direction. The latter is irrespective of the sufficiency of the means, the former in view of their insufficiency. A special section was devoted to the discussion of “the phenomena that emerge from the conjunction of the technical and the economizing direction of the human economy”.		{{Page \|n°=3}} it from the technical economic direction. The latter is irrespective of the sufficiency of the means, the former in view of their insufficiency. A special section was devoted to the discussion of “the phenomena that emerge from the conjunction of the technical and the economizing direction of the human economy”.

	Because of the brilliant and formidable achievements of economic history, however, the economizing meaning became the only meaning, and the common sense but seemingly naive economizing meaning referring to allocation of material goods whether they be scarce or not lost status and was eventually forgotten.		Because of the brilliant and formidable achievements of economic history, however, the economizing meaning became the only meaning, and the common sense but seemingly naive economizing meaning referring to allocation of material goods whether they be scarce or not lost status and was eventually forgotten.
Line 35:		Line 35:
	*		*

	[4] meaning. Only recently has the field of primitive and archaic type countries been taken up again. But by this time the ancillary disciplines had largely endorsed the formal meaning of economic and the substantive meaning had gone out of fashion even in the ancillary disciplines which formerly were employing it as a matter of course, like Moliere’s husband-man who had never realized that he was talking prose.		{{Page \|n°=4}} meaning. Only recently has the field of primitive and archaic type countries been taken up again. But by this time the ancillary disciplines had largely endorsed the formal meaning of economic and the substantive meaning had gone out of fashion even in the ancillary disciplines which formerly were employing it as a matter of course, like Moliere’s husband-man who had never realized that he was talking prose.

	Thus it proved to be a circumstances of significance for the future of the science of economics that the posthumous edition of the Grundsätze was never translated into English. No discussion of Menger’s ‘Principles’ – including Robbins’ well known book (193 ) mentions the subject of the two meanings. Hayek’s preface to the London School of Economics <span style="color:white;">space</span> process edition of the original German Grundsätze (1871), contributed to the elimination of the matter from the consciousness of the economists. Hayek chose the first edition for publication, and referred to the posthumous MSS. as fragmentary and disordered. “For the present, at any rate, he added, the results of the work of Menger’s later years must be regarded as lost.” Another 27 years later the Grundsätze were at last rendered in English (1950). Again the first edition was selected, to top the irony, the translators decided to render the crucial term ‘wirtschaftend’ (engaged in economic activity) throughout by the word economizing which Menger had expressly restricted to the allocation of insufficient means. Menger’s two meanings of economy were now not only buried, but their grave was sprinkled with ashes.		Thus it proved to be a circumstances of significance for the future of the science of economics that the posthumous edition of the Grundsätze was never translated into English. No discussion of Menger’s ‘Principles’ – including Robbins’ well known book (193 ) mentions the subject of the two meanings. Hayek’s preface to the London School of Economics <span style="color:white;">space</span> process edition of the original German Grundsätze (1871), contributed to the elimination of the matter from the consciousness of the economists. Hayek chose the first edition for publication, and referred to the posthumous MSS. as fragmentary and disordered. “For the present, at any rate, he added, the results of the work of Menger’s later years must be regarded as lost.” Another 27 years later the Grundsätze were at last rendered in English (1950). Again the first edition was selected, to top the irony, the translators decided to render the crucial term ‘wirtschaftend’ (engaged in economic activity) throughout by the word economizing which Menger had expressly restricted to the allocation of insufficient means. Menger’s two meanings of economy were now not only buried, but their grave was sprinkled with ashes.

Santiago Pinault: /* Text Informations */

2017-07-25T07:06:37Z

Text Informations

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:06, 25 July 2017
Line 47:		Line 47:
	== Text Informations ==		== Text Informations ==
	'''Reference''':<br />		'''Reference''':<br />
			'''Date''': 1959<br />
	'''KPA''': [[37/13]] (5 p., draft of an article)		'''KPA''': [[37/13]] (5 p., draft of an article)

Santiago Pinault: Santiago Pinault moved page Research into the substantive economy to Research into the substantive Economy

2017-07-08T11:53:57Z

Santiago Pinault moved page Research into the substantive economy to Research into the substantive Economy

← Older revision	Revision as of 12:53, 8 July 2017
(No difference)

Santiago Pinault: /* References */

2017-07-03T20:18:25Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:18, 3 July 2017
Line 45:		Line 45:
	<references />		<references />

	== ~~References~~ ==		== Text Informations ==
	'''Reference''':<br />		'''Reference''':<br />
	'''KPA''': [[37/13]] (5 p., draft of an article)		'''KPA''': [[37/13]] (5 p., draft of an article)

Santiago Pinault: /* The text */

2017-05-04T20:38:04Z

The text

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 4 May 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{English to re-read}}		{{English to re-read}}

	~~== The text ==~~		__TOC__

	Since the Cold War, “Point 4”, and the national revolutions in Asia and Africa, economists have been called upon to produce ideas on the development of backward countries on which to base practical policies for private and public investment, as well as “foreign” aid. The economists’ response, after a period pf fruitless effort, was almost unanimously to the effect that but little progress could be expected from economics alone. Substantial advance required the help of the anthropologist familiar with primitive economics (in the sense of Malinowski’s “argonauts”); of the sociologists who knew his Maine, Sierke, Weber and even Veblen. The economic historian too was to be heard; for how much did we know of the economy of antiquity before Rostovtzeff? Yet had not Rodbertus’, Bücher’s and Max Weber’s predictions proved correct that simple communities and early societies were showing a great similarity with conditions of the Ancient world? To forego their potential contributions to the problem in hand would be a grevious error.		Since the Cold War, “Point 4”, and the national revolutions in Asia and Africa, economists have been called upon to produce ideas on the development of backward countries on which to base practical policies for private and public investment, as well as “foreign” aid. The economists’ response, after a period pf fruitless effort, was almost unanimously to the effect that but little progress could be expected from economics alone. Substantial advance required the help of the anthropologist familiar with primitive economics (in the sense of Malinowski’s “argonauts”); of the sociologists who knew his Maine, Sierke, Weber and even Veblen. The economic historian too was to be heard; for how much did we know of the economy of antiquity before Rostovtzeff? Yet had not Rodbertus’, Bücher’s and Max Weber’s predictions proved correct that simple communities and early societies were showing a great similarity with conditions of the Ancient world? To forego their potential contributions to the problem in hand would be a grevious error.

Santiago Pinault: /* Collaborative Work */

2017-05-04T20:29:59Z

Collaborative Work

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 4 May 2017
Line 47:		Line 47:
	'''Reference''':<br />		'''Reference''':<br />
	'''KPA''': [[37/13]] (5 p., draft of an article)		'''KPA''': [[37/13]] (5 p., draft of an article)

	~~== Collaborative Work ==~~

	~~{\| class="wikitable"~~
	~~! Task~~
	~~! Name~~
	~~! Date~~
	\|-
	~~\| Typen~~
	~~\| Santiago Pinault~~
	~~\| 2016~~
	\|-
	\|
	\|
	\|
	\|}

Santiago Pinault at 20:08, 3 May 2017

2017-05-03T20:08:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:08, 3 May 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{English to re-read}}

	== The text ==		== The text ==
	Since the Cold War, “Point 4”, and the national revolutions in Asia and Africa, economists have been called upon to produce ideas on the development of backward countries on which to base practical policies for private and public investment, as well as “foreign” aid. The economists’ response, after a period pf fruitless effort, was almost unanimously to the effect that but little progress could be expected from economics alone. Substantial advance required the help of the anthropologist familiar with primitive economics (in the sense of Malinowski’s “argonauts”); of the sociologists who knew his Maine, Sierke, Weber and even Veblen. The economic historian too was to be heard; for how much did we know of the economy of antiquity before Rostovtzeff? Yet had not Rodbertus’, Bücher’s and Max Weber’s predictions proved correct that simple communities and early societies were showing a great similarity with conditions of the Ancient world? To forego their potential contributions to the problem in hand would be a grevious error.		Since the Cold War, “Point 4”, and the national revolutions in Asia and Africa, economists have been called upon to produce ideas on the development of backward countries on which to base practical policies for private and public investment, as well as “foreign” aid. The economists’ response, after a period pf fruitless effort, was almost unanimously to the effect that but little progress could be expected from economics alone. Substantial advance required the help of the anthropologist familiar with primitive economics (in the sense of Malinowski’s “argonauts”); of the sociologists who knew his Maine, Sierke, Weber and even Veblen. The economic historian too was to be heard; for how much did we know of the economy of antiquity before Rostovtzeff? Yet had not Rodbertus’, Bücher’s and Max Weber’s predictions proved correct that simple communities and early societies were showing a great similarity with conditions of the Ancient world? To forego their potential contributions to the problem in hand would be a grevious error.
Line 44:		Line 46:
	== References ==		== References ==
	'''Reference''':<br />		'''Reference''':<br />
	'''KPA''': 37/13 (5p. ~~Draft~~ of an article)		'''KPA''': [[37/13]] (5 p., draft of an article)

	== Collaborative Work ==		== Collaborative Work ==
Line 61:		Line 63:
	\|		\|
	\|}		\|}

	~~[[Category: Text in English to re-read]]~~

Santiago Pinault: /* The text */

2017-05-03T01:44:33Z

The text

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:44, 3 May 2017
Line 5:		Line 5:
	The fruitlessness of the initial contact should not be blamed on either side. It was due neither to unwarranted expectations on the part of the economists, nor to failure of the ancillary disciplines to co-operate. Rather, to overreadiness of the of the economic anthropologist, the economic sociologist and the economic historian to acquaint himself with modern economics. For almost at once the new allies were infected with the selfsame limitations that had prevented the economist themselves from penetrating the tissue of primitive communities, so that in their innocent ardour the scholars of the ancillary fields merely reproduced the efforts of the professional economist which had proved inadequate in the first place.		The fruitlessness of the initial contact should not be blamed on either side. It was due neither to unwarranted expectations on the part of the economists, nor to failure of the ancillary disciplines to co-operate. Rather, to overreadiness of the of the economic anthropologist, the economic sociologist and the economic historian to acquaint himself with modern economics. For almost at once the new allies were infected with the selfsame limitations that had prevented the economist themselves from penetrating the tissue of primitive communities, so that in their innocent ardour the scholars of the ancillary fields merely reproduced the efforts of the professional economist which had proved inadequate in the first place.

	[2] To this comedy of errors both sides contributed with equal generosity. A ranking anthropologist<ref>Polanyi refers here to Melville J. Herskovits and his ''The Economic Life of Primitive Peoples'', in 1940, that change its name for ''Economic Anthropology'', in 1952. -- ~~~~~~~</ref> is on record who pleaded against a theoretical economist that the economist’s definition did not apply to primitive economics societies; but after a public exchange of arguments, he had himself convinced by his opponent, to re-write his own textbook of economic anthropology, this time on the economist’s lines, with the effect of rendering it less useful not only to anthropologists but also to economists. The economists, on the other hand, often denied having even cognizance of any of their own definition of economics, and in effect handled the problem in a manner that showed convincingly their unfamiliarity with the issue.		[2] To this comedy of errors both sides contributed with equal generosity. A ranking anthropologist<ref>Polanyi refers here to Melville J. Herskovits and his ''The Economic Life of Primitive Peoples'', in 1940, that change its name for ''Economic Anthropology'', in 1952. -- Santiago Pinault</ref> is on record who pleaded against a theoretical economist that the economist’s definition did not apply to primitive economics societies; but after a public exchange of arguments, he had himself convinced by his opponent, to re-write his own textbook of economic anthropology, this time on the economist’s lines, with the effect of rendering it less useful not only to anthropologists but also to economists. The economists, on the other hand, often denied having even cognizance of any of their own definition of economics, and in effect handled the problem in a manner that showed convincingly their unfamiliarity with the issue.

	Two different meanings of ‘economic’ are then in question, creating uncertainty which of them is related to the subject matter of economic theory and which to that of the other social sciences, insofar as they deal with the same field of man’s livelihood. These sciences – economic anthropology, economic sociology, economic history – I will call the ancillary disciplines. The question is then what have the two meanings in common with economic theory on the second hand, the ancillary disciplines on the other. For further abbreviation I will call the meaning more suited to the main theory the <u>formal</u>, the other meaning the <u>substantive</u>. Accordingly I take the formal meaning to come close to economizing or maximizing; the substantive, to be related to material want satisfaction. In common usage the two are compounded into a maximizing of material want satisfaction.		Two different meanings of ‘economic’ are then in question, creating uncertainty which of them is related to the subject matter of economic theory and which to that of the other social sciences, insofar as they deal with the same field of man’s livelihood. These sciences – economic anthropology, economic sociology, economic history – I will call the ancillary disciplines. The question is then what have the two meanings in common with economic theory on the second hand, the ancillary disciplines on the other. For further abbreviation I will call the meaning more suited to the main theory the <u>formal</u>, the other meaning the <u>substantive</u>. Accordingly I take the formal meaning to come close to economizing or maximizing; the substantive, to be related to material want satisfaction. In common usage the two are compounded into a maximizing of material want satisfaction.

Santiago Pinault: /* The text */

2017-05-03T01:44:03Z

The text

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:44, 3 May 2017
Line 5:		Line 5:
	The fruitlessness of the initial contact should not be blamed on either side. It was due neither to unwarranted expectations on the part of the economists, nor to failure of the ancillary disciplines to co-operate. Rather, to overreadiness of the of the economic anthropologist, the economic sociologist and the economic historian to acquaint himself with modern economics. For almost at once the new allies were infected with the selfsame limitations that had prevented the economist themselves from penetrating the tissue of primitive communities, so that in their innocent ardour the scholars of the ancillary fields merely reproduced the efforts of the professional economist which had proved inadequate in the first place.		The fruitlessness of the initial contact should not be blamed on either side. It was due neither to unwarranted expectations on the part of the economists, nor to failure of the ancillary disciplines to co-operate. Rather, to overreadiness of the of the economic anthropologist, the economic sociologist and the economic historian to acquaint himself with modern economics. For almost at once the new allies were infected with the selfsame limitations that had prevented the economist themselves from penetrating the tissue of primitive communities, so that in their innocent ardour the scholars of the ancillary fields merely reproduced the efforts of the professional economist which had proved inadequate in the first place.

	[2] To this comedy of errors both sides contributed with equal generosity. A ranking anthropologist<ref>Polanyi refers here to Melville J. Herskovits and his ''The Economic Life of Primitive Peoples'', in 1940, that change its name for ''Economic Anthropology'', in 1952.</ref> is on record who pleaded against a theoretical economist that the economist’s definition did not apply to primitive economics societies; but after a public exchange of arguments, he had himself convinced by his opponent, to re-write his own textbook of economic anthropology, this time on the economist’s lines, with the effect of rendering it less useful not only to anthropologists but also to economists. The economists, on the other hand, often denied having even cognizance of any of their own definition of economics, and in effect handled the problem in a manner that showed convincingly their unfamiliarity with the issue.		[2] To this comedy of errors both sides contributed with equal generosity. A ranking anthropologist<ref>Polanyi refers here to Melville J. Herskovits and his ''The Economic Life of Primitive Peoples'', in 1940, that change its name for ''Economic Anthropology'', in 1952. -- ~~~</ref> is on record who pleaded against a theoretical economist that the economist’s definition did not apply to primitive economics societies; but after a public exchange of arguments, he had himself convinced by his opponent, to re-write his own textbook of economic anthropology, this time on the economist’s lines, with the effect of rendering it less useful not only to anthropologists but also to economists. The economists, on the other hand, often denied having even cognizance of any of their own definition of economics, and in effect handled the problem in a manner that showed convincingly their unfamiliarity with the issue.

	Two different meanings of ‘economic’ are then in question, creating uncertainty which of them is related to the subject matter of economic theory and which to that of the other social sciences, insofar as they deal with the same field of man’s livelihood. These sciences – economic anthropology, economic sociology, economic history – I will call the ancillary disciplines. The question is then what have the two meanings in common with economic theory on the second hand, the ancillary disciplines on the other. For further abbreviation I will call the meaning more suited to the main theory the <u>formal</u>, the other meaning the <u>substantive</u>. Accordingly I take the formal meaning to come close to economizing or maximizing; the substantive, to be related to material want satisfaction. In common usage the two are compounded into a maximizing of material want satisfaction.		Two different meanings of ‘economic’ are then in question, creating uncertainty which of them is related to the subject matter of economic theory and which to that of the other social sciences, insofar as they deal with the same field of man’s livelihood. These sciences – economic anthropology, economic sociology, economic history – I will call the ancillary disciplines. The question is then what have the two meanings in common with economic theory on the second hand, the ancillary disciplines on the other. For further abbreviation I will call the meaning more suited to the main theory the <u>formal</u>, the other meaning the <u>substantive</u>. Accordingly I take the formal meaning to come close to economizing or maximizing; the substantive, to be related to material want satisfaction. In common usage the two are compounded into a maximizing of material want satisfaction.

Santiago Pinault: /* Notes */

2017-05-03T01:43:19Z

Notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:43, 3 May 2017
Line 38:		Line 38:
	The first of the two meanings gave rise to the scarcity definition of economics; the second was ignored.		The first of the two meanings gave rise to the scarcity definition of economics; the second was ignored.

	== Notes ==		== Editor's Notes ==

	<references />		<references />